In re Marriage of Tate, 2023 IL App (2d) 220331-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Tate, 2023 IL App (2d) 220331-U (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 15, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Charles L. Tate. Respondent-Appellant: Yvette Mack‑Tate. Minor: B.T. (born 2007; ~15 years old at dispute).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the minor to attend an out‑of‑state (Washington, D.C.) boarding/day high school (St. John’s) and to reside with his paternal grandmother during the school year over the mother’s objection.
- Interaction between the parties’ prior parenting plan (joint decision‑making; child to attend school in father’s district) and later motions/modifications based on changed circumstances and best‑interest analysis.

3) Holding / outcome
- The Second District affirmed. The trial court did not err in permitting the child to attend St. John’s and to reside with his paternal grandmother during the school year; the ruling was in the child’s best interests.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings.
- Trial court’s decision rested on a preponderance of evidence favoring the child’s best interests: the child’s expressed, matured preference; academic and athletic advantages at St. John’s (supporting documentation); recommendations from the guardian ad litem and treating professionals (family counselor/therapist); practical living arrangements (grandmother nearby, father’s commitment to be present); and the child’s prior positive familiarity with D.C.
- The mother’s credibility issues, documented noncompliance with court‑ordered therapy, a Rule 215 mental‑health evaluation diagnosing obsessive‑compulsive traits, and a prior DCFS inquiry (and related professional recommendations to limit unsupervised parenting) undermined her opposition.
- The court concluded the evidence established the move served the child’s best interests despite the parenting plan’s prior school‑location language; appellate court found no reversible error.

5) Practice implications
- Best‑interest proof is decisive in school‑relocation disputes; credible evidence from GALs, treating professionals, school evaluations, and the child’s preference can carry the day.
- Prior parenting‑plan language is not dispositive if changed circumstances and best‑interest evidence support modification.
- Mental‑health evaluations, DCFS findings, and demonstrable noncompliance with court orders materially affect credibility and custody outcomes.
- Appellate courts defer heavily to trial courts on credibility and discretionary custody determinations—build a record with witnesses, documentary school comparisons, living‑arrangement logistics, and clear testimony about parental involvement and child welfare.